Last week, state Rep. Spencer Igo, R-Wabana Township, voted with a small group of Minnesota House Republicans to help the DFL pass a $1.9 billion package of infrastructure projects.
On Thursday, his counterpart in the Senate — Rob Farnsworth of Hibbing — voted against the same plan as Senate Republicans blocked a major construction bill from reaching the desk of Gov. Tim Walz as part of a bid to secure new tax cuts.
“It was a tough vote but I’m getting more emails and requests from people to end the tax on Social Security,” Farnsworth said after the debate. “That’s what my district wants more than anything.”
The defeat of the bonding bill was the latest development in an escalating game of political chicken over money that would pay for things like roads, parks, water treatment plants and college buildings across Minnesota.
The vote also illustrated the divide among Republicans, particularly in rural areas, as the party debated whether to stall a bonding bill as a negotiating tactic or greenlight money to pay for critical infrastructure.
Bonding is unique in that it requires a 60% supermajority to pass in the House and Senate, meaning DFLers who control the Legislature need some GOP votes to pass a borrowing bill. As a result, Republican leaders have used their one major piece of leverage to advocate for tax cuts with Minnesota’s $17.5 billion surplus by withholding votes for infrastructure that otherwise has bipartisan support.
Democrats, meanwhile, have conducted an intense pressure campaign to get Republicans in Greater Minnesota on board with bonding, including by lobbying mayors in GOP districts to arm-twist their legislators.
Minnesota has gone more than two years without a bonding bill, an unusually long gap that has frustrated legislators and local government officials who complain of growing needs. But the two parties remain locked in a stalemate, causing emotions to boil over — and accelerating DFL threats to move ahead without projects in Republican districts by using cash to pay for infrastructure, which needs only a simple majority vote. Democrats prefer to bond so they can stretch their surplus to pay for other priorities.
“If you want a project in the bonding bill the reality is … you have to vote for the bill,” said Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, in an emotional committee hearing after the vote. Pappas chairs the Senate’s Capital Investment Committee.
“It’s like why in the world should I fund your project if you as a senator don’t care enough to vote for a bonding bill?” she said.
Senate shoots down the bill
The roughly $1.9 billion infrastructure package is really two bills. One $1.5 billion measure includes the bonding and a separate $400 million bill would be paid for in cash.
The package follows two years of failed talks when Republicans held the Senate and DFLers controlled the House. Democrats now hold majorities in both chambers and control the legislative agenda. They have pitched this bill as a reboot of a 2022 deal that was never passed but had bipartisan support.
The party’s hope is to pass a major bonding bill now — with Republican votes to clear the supermajority requirement — and then approve a second infrastructure bill with cash later. That would allow the DFL to both address a large number of infrastructure needs and drain less money from the surplus that DFLers hope to use on other issues.
The DFL can afford to pay for infrastructure entirely with cash, which would allow them to skip negotiating with Republicans. And Democratic lawmakers have certainly threatened to do so. But it’s not the party’s first choice. “If we go to an all-cash bill, it’s going to be very difficult for us to replace $1.5 billion in bonds with all cash,” said Pappas, who chairs the Senate’s Capital Investment Committee.
The notion of a more one-sided cash bill and the years of failed negotiations over bonding was enough to make 21 House Republicans back the DFL plan. The $1.9 billion package includes equal money for local projects in Republican and DFL districts. Many of those GOP lawmakers live in rural districts where critical infrastructure can be far too expensive for smaller communities to shoulder through local property taxes.
Leading up to the Senate vote on Thursday, Democrats and bonding supporters held a press conference meant to convince other GOP lawmakers to follow suit.
Pappas listed off projects for cities in Republican districts like Monticello, Owatonna and Braham. Republican legislators also said Pappas and staff called mayors around the state, asking city officials to lobby GOP legislators.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Walker Orenstein[/image_credit][image_caption]State Sen. Sandy Pappas, chair of the Capital Investment Committee, spoke in support of the bonding bill at a State Capitol rally on Thursday.[/image_caption]
“It’s time for them to show up for Greater Minnesota,” he said.
Members of trades unions, institutions that Republicans have made political overtures to in recent years, crowded outside the Senate chamber and chanted “jobs now” at lawmakers as they walked into the vote.
Democrats needed seven Republican legislators to cross the aisle for the $1.5 billion bonding bill. They got zero.
During the floor debate, many GOP lawmakers said they weren’t opposed to the idea of a bonding bill or cash infrastructure and to not consider their vote against the legislation as a rejection of infrastructure needs. Rather, they said, it was a push to use the one point of leverage they had to ensure tax cuts, like ending a state tax on Social Security benefits. Some Republicans also asked to pay for the whole $1.9 billion package in cash to avoid incurring debt with a large surplus, assuming a cash bill includes their projects.
Many DFLers do support tax cuts and rebate checks, including some whom want to eliminate the Social Security tax. But Democratic leaders will likely wait until they have a larger budget deal between the House, Senate and Walz before passing anything of that nature. Republicans are also skeptical they’ll do any major cuts.
Sen. John Jasinski, R-Faribault, said DFLers called officials in Owatonna, a city in his district, which he called “kind of a cheap shot.”
There is $11 million in the bonding bill to help Owatonna expand a wastewater treatment facility. Rep. John Petersburg, R-Waseca, represents Owatonna in the state House and voted for the bonding bill last week.
“Yes, they made calls concerned about the bonding bill, and yes, we need a wastewater treatment plant in Owatonna, no doubt,” Jasinski said. “But my … constituents are also texting me and calling me and emailing me and saying: ‘stand firm, we want tax relief, we need tax relief.’”
Sen. Carla Nelson, R-Rochester, said she has voted for “every bonding bill, every time.”
“I do that because bonding bills are important,” she said. But Nelson said she wouldn’t vote for this latest plan because it would come before “the responsibility that we have to get some of that surplus back to the hands of Minnesotans.”
After the vote, Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson, R-East Grand Forks, told reporters that Minnesotans don’t want a “completely partisan bill” with projects only in DFL districts. “We want a bonding bill, and we want tax relief,” he said. “What’s so hard about doing that?”
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Walker Orenstein[/image_credit][image_caption]After the vote, Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson, left, told reporters that Minnesotans don’t want a “completely partisan bill” with projects only in DFL districts. At right is state Sen. Karin Housley.[/image_caption]DFLers escalate threats to pull projects
Shortly after, Pappas canceled hearings for other potential infrastructure projects in Republican districts that were scheduled for the afternoon. Angry GOP lawmakers complained that local officials were en route to the Capitol and accused Pappas of retribution and unethical conduct.
Jasinski said Democrats shouldn’t “Penalize our districts, our communities because we couldn’t vote for a bill because our residents have been asking for tax relief.”
“This is the one bill that the minority gets a voice in,” he said. “It’s the one, and you know if it was reversed you would be just as upset.”
Pappas shot back that she has tried to be bipartisan, hearing GOP bills for months and including them in the bonding bill that Republicans voted against. “Easily half” of the money was headed to rural Minnesota, Pappas argued, and she said Republicans needed to collaborate. (The committee ended up hearing one bill proposed by a Republican tied to Chisago County.)
“You had $31.5 million worth of projects … in the bonding bill that you voted against on the floor today,” Pappas said to Jasinski. “I was willing to give you $31 million and you voted it down. I don’t care about what you’re saying about taxes, that doesn’t concern me. My leadership has said repeatedly that there’s going to be tax relief, just not tied with a bonding bill.”
Pappas continued: “Yes there are consequences for bad votes, and there are consequences for the vote you took today.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct that Republican Sen. Mark Johnson is the minority leader.
As usual, at least in my years in Minnesota, the state GOP is essentially the party of toddlers, not at all reluctant to slide into temper tantrum mode if/when they don’t get what they want. I’ve read elsewhere that significant tax relief is part of the budget plan, as suggested in Walker’s piece, but the DFL doesn’t want it tied to a bonding bill. Republicans are refusing to accept what they asked for because it’s not being delivered to them in the way they’d prefer. This is the mind set of a 3-year-old.
We’d all like a free lunch, but there’s no such thing. Infrastructure is paid for with taxes.
We already spend far more on seniors than we do on children. I can’t say I’m enthused about ending state taxes on Social Security while simultaneously underfunding education at every level. I keep waiting – in vain so far – for a Republican vision of state government that’s based on something more than “I don’t like paying taxes.”
Ray, we can move to Hudson, Wisconsin. I can keep my job in Minnesora, and not pay taxes on my SS income.
Sell me on staying…
You’d spend as much on gas as you pay in state taxes on your social security.
Why? If the grass is greener, go for it.
Why Hudson? Why not Milwaukee ? Oh, so you want to continue using Minnesota’s tax provided benefits but not help pay for them.
Easy sell. After this session, if you are a millionaire, yes, you will pay taxes once you start taking social security. But you will be able to afford it. Meanwhile, if you move to Wisconsin you’ll be living in MAGA dominated Wisconsin.
Enough said.
So you are working and collecting SS? Welcome to Wisconsin where schoolteachers are abandoning the profession because twelve years of steady disinvestment has paid off for the GOP. And welcome to having the politicians pick their voters! Welcome to having the GOP clown club spend a $Million on an election “investigation” two years past. Oh so wonderful. Patriots pay their taxes.
One last benefit to consider before you call all your friends with trucks to help you move, you get the Right To Work For Less in Wisconsin.
Dale, do you know what percent of your Social Security benefits are included in state taxable income?
According to the Minnesota House Research…
https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/issinfo/sstaxes.aspx?src=20
More than half of MN recipients pay zero state income tax, and the amount gets phased in until about 110-thousand for a couple filing jointly. Everyone’s situation is different.
There are a couple of calculators online, but the Minnesota specific one is at
https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/socsectax.aspx
I hear the argument that Social Security was designed to supplement income, not finance state government. Well… from what I’ve read most will receive more in benefits than they contributed in taxable wages. So the extra amount, if the law is changed and it’s no longer taxed, is tax-free government money?
Once again, the dreaded “I’m going to leave the state if I don’t get my way!”
Why would you think that’s a threat? One less whiny conservative grousing about his taxes sounds like a net positive, even if they admit they intend to freeload off Minnesota’s infrastructure.
The potholes won
Republicans, state government has a responsibility to tend to the infrastructure of the state. That is a lot more important than making sure wealthy people pay taxes on their Social Security.
Your candidate for governor an on eliminating the state income tax. Pretty clearly, you are quite willing to make huge cuts in state spending to fatten your personal bank accounts. If you want more money in your bank account, resign and go get a job where you earn it. That is how capitalism works. We Democrats do not plan to subsidize wealthy people who never have enough money and are happy to see working people pay for the cost of state government.
If Republicans want the entire infrastructure package without a bonding bill, because we have a large one-time surplus, if you deliver the votes, I’m pretty sure Democrats will consider it a good way to spend some of the money.
It’s odd that Repubs refuse to support the bonding bill that includes their projects, when the alternative is that the DFL funds their own projects & leave Repubs out entirely. Yes , Repubs want tax relief, but now have zero leverage to get it & also no infrastructure projects for their districts.
No one ever said they were bright. This party has devolved into ‘blocking & blaming’. Never helpful, never meeting their constituents’ needs. One can only hope awareness grows among users…. I had a well to do 75 yr old GA tell me recently: until the national spotlight hit our state in recent years, we had no idea how much we were being lied to. Now that we do, we’re doing all we can to fix things. Kudos to them for finally waking up, seeing reality & starting to drive changes. But how much time do we have to turn things around??? It is no easy feat to undo a lifetime of lies & being led down the path…. I fear it will be too little, too late. I pray I’m wrong. But a lifetime of planned, purposeful propaganda wreaks great damage:(
Short -sighted Republican obstructionism once again rises up. Trumpism really has mutilated the Republican party.
I just read that the budget Gov. Tim is now proposing is a +27% increase in spending.
He is also including tax and fee increases on the poor and middle class.
Now I know why it is so hard to get a tax cut.
Exactly what tax and fee increases on the poor and middle class are you talking about?
An example ,
Walz is proposing a 1/8 of a cent sales tax in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Walz’s most hefty proposal is a payroll tax increase of 0.6 percent to pay for a new statewide paid family leave program.
Walz is also proposing huge increases in Car registration fees and how these fees are calculated.
It is amazing to me how you skim over the +27% growth in spending. But if you are fully committed to “tax and spend” and the domination of Government – you must be happy.
Most of that increase is one time spending. This is possible with a record budget surplus. Like all DFL budgets of the past, Walz’s budget includes more spending on the poor and middle class and less tax relief for the wealthy. For example his rebate proposal excludes > $150K incomes. Those rebates more than offset any proposed tax increases.
The 1/8 cent metro tax to fund transit amounts to average $20 year. The car tabs increases amount to an extra $50/year. Both of these provided targeted funding for metro transit and roads matching the users with the provided benefit.
The proposed family leave tax payroll tax may be the most controversial at a cost the median MN wage ($77K) earner and their employer each $462. I support this. Let’s make MN family friendly. If we can help retired SS income earners with a tax reduction, why not give young working parents some time off for their newborns?
One-time funding from Walz and company to make infrastructure improvements in an attempt to belatedly reverse the incredible damage done by the one-time spending cuts by Pawlenty to “balance” the budget. I’m okay with that/
The people who tell him what he thinks haven’t told him that yet.
So irresponsible to make such a claim without any details. The reality is that even if there are some increases in fees for select services, the cost falls to all taxpayers. But it’s impossible to debate the issue without any specifics. Typical minority party reckless and desperate cheap shot.
My advice – read other publications other than MinnPost to get a full picture of the fee and tax increases proposed by +27% Tim.
Walz is proposing a 1/8 of a cent sales tax in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Walz’s most hefty proposal is a payroll tax increase of 0.6 percent to pay for a new statewide paid family leave program.
Walz is also proposing huge increases in Car registration fees and how these fees are calculated.
So if I spend $100 in the metro, my bill is actually $100.125. I.e. it adds 12 and a half cents. Um, yikes?
I think we’re all in agreement: we want to build and maintain our public assets.
Republicans simply don’t want to pay for anything.
Free riders one and all. Call it “conservative”, but it sure as hell is not in any economic sense, “conservative”.
It’s political opportunism and a clear denial of needs.
“Yes, grandson, I was proud to be in a position to delay or deny better lives to my fellow Minnesotans. Now — who’s for ice cream?”
Why are we borrowing money when we have a $17B surplus. In this situation all of these projects should be paid for with cash!
Mike, please start paying attention, we’ve been over this many times now.
The bonding bill will include the Third Street bridge in St Paul. It fair that the users of that bridge, ten and twenty years from now, will help pay for that. My 28 y/o daughter is paying for and using things we bonded for 20 years ago. Or do you think she should freeload?
When you build things with borrowed money, in the long run they cost twice as much as they would if you paid cash, due to the interest that you have to pay over the life of the bond.
I’m a conservative guy. I pay for everything with cash. I have no debt. When I look at my friends who lease their cars, have mortgages on their houses, etc., I am way ahead of them financially even
though we have similar incomes.
The same applies to government spending. Look at what proportion of the budget goes to interest on the debt. All of that money could be spent on other projects, like low income housing, etc….
For many people, including myself, it makes no financial sense to live debt-free.
Really.
When you can lock into a 3-4% 30-year mortgage, and earn 7-9% on retirement accounts, you should absolutely take advantage of this gap and shovel your money toward retirement accounts.
Paying off your house early is financially disastrous in this situation, regardless of where you stand on the conservative-liberal spectrum.
There’s many valid reasons not to bond in a high interest municipal bond environment. We would be locking in large interest rates for years and may or may not be able to refinance those later depending on the environment. For that reason it should be an all cash bill.
Hard to pay with cash for infrastructure when the DFL wants to spend it all, plus more. In a few years there will be articles bemoaning our deficit and clamoring for more tax increases
You really think Pawlenty is going to be elected guy in 2026?
A good way to look at this repub party is Biden’s infrastructure bill, supported by just a few repubs, who received death threats for supporting building and maintaining our crumbling infrastructure.
But tax cuts are more important?
Right. Walz can crib Biden’s line: See you at the ribbon cutting.
Only if they are for the wealthy!
Proof positive that these rural districts want all the infrastructure but want everyone else to pay for it. Nothing says ‘conservative’ like ‘I want my water treatment plant but I need a tax cut to pay for it’.
This is literally happening in Arizona right now.
Developers are building entire ‘conservative’ neighborhoods in areas that don’t even have a water source.
Surplus can be neutral or bipartisan if spent on infrastructure so entire state can benefit. Neither political party has the courage to admit this.
“Tax increases” include all new spending from free school lunches to social workers on light rail platforms to legalizing pot & gambling with negative cash flows for taxpayers- all require ongoing money or spending. Neither political party has the courage to admit this.
Frankly, if surplus was split the three ways the parties agreed to last year (refund, infrastructure, rainy day fund) the haggling would be done and all of us in MN would benefit. The two parties could work on real needs of all Minnesotans. When you add new spending balancing the budget in the future is challenging. It appears all want a free lunch and there is no free lunch. Maybe they should meet in Candyland?
You seem to not understand the states budget, how it generates revenue, or basics of what goes into forecasting. MN has been routinely generating surpluses, most of which is derived from the strong revenue base and economic activity going on in the state. Further adding to that tax base will be the tax revenue cannabis and sports betting will bring in. We have an exceptionally flush budget reserve. There will be no “difficulty” in balancing the budget because despite the caterwauling from many, MN is economically vibrant and dynamic.
You overlook the fact Minnesota hasn’t routinely generated surpluses at this rate or how much of the current surplus has come from one time federal funds. The cannabis tax windfall does not exist in the current cannabis bill as we will tax it low to combat the evil black market.
Our strong revenue base comes from over taxed citizens. At the rate of proposed new spending we can expect more taxes such as the one’s already being proposed. There is no meaningful tax reduction proposals being considered ….. just higher sales , user , property , vehicle , gas taxes and fees.
Holding a bonding bill hostage to tax cuts is a dead and dying tactic the Republicans have used for years and years and years. Greater Minnesota loses when the Senate does this time and again. Their infrastructure needs get sent to the back of the queue when Leadership insists on obstruction.
I a Dem and I am 100% for a bonding bill and don’t think a cash only bill is a good idea. But I think the GOP correctly does not trust the Dems to follow through on any rebate proposal similar to what Gov. Wlaz is, in my mind, correctly proposing. There is a lot of Dem opposition in the House to any kind of tax rebate.
I think it is a mistake by Dems to not cut a deal on the bonding bill and rebates with the GOP. It would be very good politics. To date most of the surplus is going into social services and education spending that will benefit low income and minority groups. Little will benefit middle class voters. Dems need the votes of white, middle class voters. The Governor’s $1000/2000 proposal would go a long ways to shore up support with middle class voters.
Thank you for the good explanation on the centrist history of the DFL. You think so little of your former constituents that the only way you think they can be persuaded to vote for you is to literally give them money. Not that they might have common cause with the downtrodden, not that they recognize good governance and the need to fund it, not even that they might wish to help others out a sense of altruistic responsibility, the only method that works is bribery. How patronizing can a person be. Good grief, I guess as a middle class white guy, I’m just not greedy enough to fit into our noble centrists narrative.
Yeah, when I review the weekly reports from my state senator and representative and all the bills they have introduced or are working on, can’t rightly say I ever see anything that relates to me other than participating at picking up the tab. But you never know.